Allison v. Clark County Detention Center and Medical Staff

D. Nevada

Allison v. Clark County Detention Center and Medical Staff

DecidedSeptember 14, 2022

Docket2:22-cv-00772

StatusUnknown

This text of Allison v. Clark County Detention Center and Medical Staff (Allison v. Clark County Detention Center and Medical Staff) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Nevada primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Allison v. Clark County Detention Center and Medical Staff, (D. Nev. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 RONALD J. ALLISON, Case No. 2:22-cv-00772-ART-VCF

6 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING AND CLOSING v. CASE 7 CLARK COUNTY DETENTION 8 CENTER AND MEDICAL STAFF,

9 Defendants. 10 Plaintiff Ronald Allison brings this civil-rights lawsuit to redress 11 constitutional violations that he claims he suffered while detained or 12 incarcerated at Clark County Detention Center. On June 7, 2022, this Court 13 instructed Allison to file a complaint that complies with Local Special Rule 2-1 14 and either pay the $402 filing fee for a civil action or properly apply to proceed 15 in forma pauperis (“IFP”) by August 8, 2022. (ECF No. 3). The Court warned 16 Allison that this case would be dismissed and closed if he failed to comply. (Id. 17 at 3). Allison neither filed an amended complaint by that deadline nor moved for 18 an extension of time to do so. And he has not paid the filing fee or applied to 19 proceed IFP. 20 The law permits a district court to dismiss an action based on a party’s 21 failure to comply with a court order. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260– 22 61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring 23 amendment of complaint). In determining whether to dismiss an action on this 1 ground, the court must consider: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious 2 resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of 3 prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on 4 their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. In re

5 Phenylpropanolamine Prod. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) 6 (quoting Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987)). 7 The first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this 8 litigation and the court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of 9 dismissing Allison’s claims. The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also 10 weighs in favor of dismissal because a presumption of injury arises from the 11 occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing a pleading ordered by the court or

12 prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 13 1976). The fourth factor—the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their 14 merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors favoring dismissal. 15 The fifth factor requires the court to consider whether less drastic 16 alternatives can be used to correct the party’s failure that brought about the 17 court’s need to consider dismissal. Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 992 18 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining that considering less drastic alternatives before the 19 party has disobeyed a court order does not satisfy this factor); accord Pagtalunan

20 v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 643 & n.4 (9th Cir. 2002). Courts “need not exhaust 21 every sanction short of dismissal before finally dismissing a case, but must 22 explore possible and meaningful alternatives.” Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 23 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986). Because this action cannot proceed until and unless Allison files a complaint, the only alternative is to enter a second order setting 2||another deadline. But the reality of repeating an ignored order is that it often 3]/only delays the inevitable and squanders finite resources along the way. The circumstances here do not indicate that this case will be an exception: there is hint that Allison needs additional time nor evidence that he did not receive 6|| the court’s order. Setting another deadline is not a meaningful alternative given 7|| these circumstances. So the fifth factor favors dismissal. 8 Having thoroughly considered these dismissal factors, I find that they 9] weigh in favor of dismissal. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action is 10}|dismissed for failure to follow a court order. The Clerk of Court is directed to 11}/enter judgment accordingly and close this case. No other documents may be filed this now-closed case. 13 14 DATED THIS 14th day of September 2022. 15 16 fae Roasted De 17 ANNE R. TRAUM 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 RONALD J. ALLISON, Case No. 2:22-cv-00772-ART-VCF

6 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING AND CLOSING v. CASE 7 CLARK COUNTY DETENTION 8 CENTER AND MEDICAL STAFF,

9 Defendants. 10 Plaintiff Ronald Allison brings this civil-rights lawsuit to redress 11 constitutional violations that he claims he suffered while detained or 12 incarcerated at Clark County Detention Center. On June 7, 2022, this Court 13 instructed Allison to file a complaint that complies with Local Special Rule 2-1 14 and either pay the $402 filing fee for a civil action or properly apply to proceed 15 in forma pauperis (“IFP”) by August 8, 2022. (ECF No. 3). The Court warned 16 Allison that this case would be dismissed and closed if he failed to comply. (Id. 17 at 3). Allison neither filed an amended complaint by that deadline nor moved for 18 an extension of time to do so. And he has not paid the filing fee or applied to 19 proceed IFP. 20 The law permits a district court to dismiss an action based on a party’s 21 failure to comply with a court order. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260– 22 61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring 23 amendment of complaint). In determining whether to dismiss an action on this 1 ground, the court must consider: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious 2 resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of 3 prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on 4 their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. In re

5 Phenylpropanolamine Prod. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) 6 (quoting Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987)). 7 The first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this 8 litigation and the court’s interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of 9 dismissing Allison’s claims. The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also 10 weighs in favor of dismissal because a presumption of injury arises from the 11 occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing a pleading ordered by the court or

12 prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 13 1976). The fourth factor—the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their 14 merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors favoring dismissal. 15 The fifth factor requires the court to consider whether less drastic 16 alternatives can be used to correct the party’s failure that brought about the 17 court’s need to consider dismissal. Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 992 18 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining that considering less drastic alternatives before the 19 party has disobeyed a court order does not satisfy this factor); accord Pagtalunan

20 v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 643 & n.4 (9th Cir. 2002). Courts “need not exhaust 21 every sanction short of dismissal before finally dismissing a case, but must 22 explore possible and meaningful alternatives.” Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 23 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986). Because this action cannot proceed until and unless Allison files a complaint, the only alternative is to enter a second order setting 2||another deadline. But the reality of repeating an ignored order is that it often 3]/only delays the inevitable and squanders finite resources along the way. The circumstances here do not indicate that this case will be an exception: there is hint that Allison needs additional time nor evidence that he did not receive 6|| the court’s order. Setting another deadline is not a meaningful alternative given 7|| these circumstances. So the fifth factor favors dismissal. 8 Having thoroughly considered these dismissal factors, I find that they 9] weigh in favor of dismissal. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action is 10}|dismissed for failure to follow a court order. The Clerk of Court is directed to 11}/enter judgment accordingly and close this case. No other documents may be filed this now-closed case. 13 14 DATED THIS 14th day of September 2022. 15 16 fae Roasted De 17 ANNE R. TRAUM 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23

In Re Phenylpropanolamine (Ppa) Products Liability Litigation, Shantell Allen, on Behalf of Allen, Vera v. Bayer Corporation, Leon Anderson, Jr. v. Bayer Corporation, Leslie Ackel v. Bayer Corporation, Bridgett Arrington v. Bayer Corporation, Calvin McGriggs v. Delaco Company, Betty Clinton v. Delaco Company, Donna Sasseen v. Ide Interstate Inc., Elizabeth Page v. Bayer Corporation, Marie Riley v. Wyeth, Obo Itself and Its Unincorporated Division, Wyeth Consumer Healthcare, Fka Whitehall-Robins Healthcare Formerly Known as American Home Products Corporation, and Keva K. Alford, on Behalf of All Wrongful Death Beneficiaries of Henry Dexter, and Eddie Bullock v. Wyeth, Obo Itself and Its Unincorporated Division, Wyeth Consumer Healthcare, Fka Whitehall-Robins Healthcare Formerly Known as American Home Products Corporation, and Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, Bobby Holmes v. Bayer Corporation, Melody McDaniel v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Samantha Samuels v. Bayer Corporation

460 F.3d 1217 (Ninth Circuit, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Allison v. Clark County Detention Center and Medical Staff, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/allison-v-clark-county-detention-center-and-medical-staff-nvd-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack